The Subaru Legacy GT, Infiniti G35 and Acura TSX are paid-in-full members of the practical power automotive niche. They cater to financially responsible enthusiasts who want their reliability served with a supersized side of hoon and a la carte cog-swapping. Although Honda’s new Accord V-6 packs a 268-horsepower punch, the four-door’s a pedal short in the row-your-own department. Fortunately, the Accord EX-L coupe boasts a six-speed manual transmission. So is the EX-L a category killer or just another vanilla thrilla?

The EX-L coupe is a rolling homage to BMWs 3 through 8, adorned with a small sprinkling of performance cues: chrome door handles (ew), coffee can chromed pipes (huh?) and 18” rims (bow-chicka-bow-wow). And get a load of that teeny little spoiler– no compensating for anything here. In terms of sporting proportions, the EX-L is the automotive definition of cognitive dissonance: a two-door vehicle that stretches farther than a standard four-door. Clearly, this baby has a lot of ass to haul.

On the upside, the EX-L’s bootylicious bounteousness makes the rear seats roomy enough for at least two adults. Unfortunately the back seat is a journey, not a destination; ensconcing oneself in the EX-L’s rearmost chairs is a convoluted and agonizing process. Returning to the positive spin, the Accord's huge trunk compensates for the back seats’ limited access– especially for coupe drivers familiar with the fine art of securing grocery bags with shoulder belts.

The view from behind the EX-L’s wheel is strangely… feminine. Like the Dodge logo and the Subaru Tribeca, the EX-L’s interior offers-up a pistonhead paean to the female reproductive system. From the way the dashboard curves sweep inward like fallopian tubes into the uterus slash radio/climate control unit, to the oversized, top-heavy H on the steering wheel, Freud would have had a heyday.

Yes, well, the outward edges of the dash connected with my knees more than once while I was entering and exiting the vehicle, leading to some decidedly un-Ladylike cursing. (Take it from me, fallopian tubes are not known for their ergonomics.) As for the radio head unit (so to speak), Honda's answer to complaints of overly-complex controls is the engineering equivalent of talking louder. They've made the buttons bigger and the writing larger. It may be easier for fat-fingered folks to grope through the ICE menus, but it's no more intuitive than before– or BMW's iDrive.

Ergonomics be damned. Practical funsters focus on less prosaic matters, like sheer horsepower. Turn the key, fire-up the filly and slip into the bliss that is a well-tuned Honda V6. This mill’s got torque all over and horsepower galore, all mated to yet another blissfully smooth and easy-shifting Honda gearbox. Girth aside, Road and Track’s resident tire shredders mustered a very respectable 5.9 seconds on the zero to 60 sprint– a hair behind most of the competition. The EX-L won’t light your hair on fire, but at this price you’ll shut up and drive.

The ridiculous pipes provide a terrific aural balance between a savory exhaust note and cruising silence. Punch the gas and you’ll be cackling before you know it. The exhaust's sexy bwaaahhhhh is almost enough to drown out the unholy road noise those 18” tires unleash beneath you. (I had to double-check to make sure some bureaucrat didn’t accidentally ship a car with snow tires to the dirty South.) Charitable drivers should consider the EX-L’s din a not-so-subtle advertisement for Acura.

In a straight line, the EX-L coupe is silken joy. Try to throw this porker around a corner and you’ll get an abrupt reminder of why God invented rear wheel-drive. It’s like talking your inebriated, obese buddy into being the rear part of a two-person horse costume. No matter how hard you try, the EX-L's rear end is sluggish and unwieldy. Eventually you give up and just drag the stupid ass along behind you.

Honda’s point-and-shoot steering and crisp turn-in are also absent, sacrificed on the altar of a comfortably numb ride. Anyone wanting a manual EX-L is probably more interested in sampling some Si-style driving dynamics than keeping the cups in their holders; failing to tune the EX-L’s suspension to match the coupe’s demeanor one of da meanest things Honda’s done to enthusiasts in quite some time.

The EX-L coupe is a conflicted vehicle. It’s got a powerful engine with a snick-happy transmission mated to an average suspension. It’s got all the appearance of a luxury vehicle, with none of the quiet and little of the luxuriousness. It’s fun to drive, but not REALLY fun.

Yes, the EX-L's a strange offering, given Honda aspirations for the Accord as the nü full-size family sedan. With a sport-tuned suspension, SH-AWD and a few more toys, the EX-L would blow its competitors into the weeds. As it is, the EX-L is… um… I’m sorry. What were we talking about?

78 Comments on “Honda Accord EX-L Review...”

Megan: Nice review, but for us 6’4″ male pistonheads on a budget out there (I would be considering the 190HP 2.4), how do you (and anyone else who has driven the Accord Coupe), think that it stacks up to the competition, say the Camry Solara, Pontiac G6 GTP, Altima Coupe, etc.
I know that the major complaint for the new Accords is the “spare tire” that they’ve gained in middle age, but for those of us who share the same morphology, the roominess may offset the slight worsening in the twisties…

I really wanted to like this car; i haven’t driven one yet, but it sounds like it is less fun than the last EX V6 manual coupe, which was a very refined and mature hoonmobile. If they had gotten the suspension right this would be on a lot of people like mine’s shortlist for next purchase. I’ll have to try one anyway, of course – but i’m disheartened to read this kind of stuff!

They’ve gotten too carried away with filligree in their interiors. When I checked out the new Civic Si, I couldn’t understand why it replaced the previous generation’s simple knob with 10 buttons. The new Accord’s dash looks about straight forward as a tax return.

What happened to Honda being about simple refinement?

I’m also finding it hard to get excited about that 268hp engine… Who needs 270 hp in a FWD family sedan?

The new Accord is another step in the (wrong) direction of heavier, bigger, more powerful and more complicated.

Hmmm…. I just bought a 1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC a week ago for $2600 that is in immaculate shape. At least on the used side, touring coupes are having a lot of difficulty in the marketplace.

Your review was very reminiscent of my experience driving the Mark VIII, sans the 6-speed and feminime interior. I think these vehicles are excellent choices for those who do a lot of highway and country driving. But they usually have about 75 to 100 horsepower that you can’t really use around the twisties due to the bulk of the machine.

Side reference here, I actually drove a red 1994 Camry Coupe for 12 years and 239k. I also drove a 2003 Solara to the sale last night (another dealer owned it). A good four cylinder for a touring coupe is a perfectly fine choice and you’ll usually end up with around 30 to 34 mpg overall. As a ‘personal’ car for the highway driver they’re worth the money. But then again, you can get a perfectly good T-Bird with low mileage, a V8 and all the options for around $1500 to $2500 these days.

This Accord may be a four star vehicle. But compared with the bang for the buck you can get in the used car market (which offers magna cum depreciation in this particular segment), it’s not really a good choice.

Girth aside, Road and Track’s resident tire shredders mustered a very respectable 5.9 seconds on the zero to 60 sprint– a hair behind most of the competition. The EX-L won’t light your hair on fire, but at this price you’ll shut up and drive

I haven’t yet owned a car that can beat 8 seconds to 60. I imagine that 5.9 would at least put a few sparks in my hair.

Lets keep in mind that Honda isn’t building cars for the enthusiast, but rather, for the masses. If this review was of a soft S2000, it would be more on track.

Wanting a stiffer suspension isn’t a dealbreaker. Go aftermarket, and tune it to your exact specifications.

Sorry Megan, I think you missed the point. This is the NEW ACCORD. Coupe. With leather. Its fraternal twin brother is a family sedan. They have a lot in common, just not number of doors.

Shaker is right, this is a large coupe that will also accomodate those of us that are taller than 5’10”. Honda was not going after the G35/37 coupe, or the 350Z crowd. They are evolving the Accord for the Accord crowd, and maybe some Camry/Solara/Altima owners.

We need to stop reviewing vehicles from the perspective of, “are they what WE want them to be?”. It’s not that difficult. If Honda was going to blaze a different trail with this coupe, they would NOT have called it an ACCORD.

I can see that. Mostly she’s complaining about Honda’s decision to put lipstick on a Clydesdale. It’s still an impressive beast if you need a draft horse. The lipstick just makes you want to look the other way in spite of its innate goodness and suitability to task. Or something.

Shaker:
Someone else reviewed the more ‘vanilla’ Accord, so you may want to reference that. I specifically picked this one because it can be had in a manual, whereas most of the cars you mentioned cannot. As for being 6’4″, the new Accord has quite a bit of room (the coupe more so than the sedan), so you may want to give it a sit-in first. Lots of leg and head room. Though it seemed the passenger side seat was shorter and not as comfortable.

Mrb00st:
Give it a drive, you may find it acceptable. It was to me, but to my husband, it was not… he’d still rather have the LGT or something tighter. I actually appreciated the softer suspension to some degree, though the cornering… yikes.

Samir:
I would rather have one of these than a TSX. The last one I drove was incredibly, incredibly cheap on the inside and not half as fast. Technically this is ‘below’ it, but if you’re willing to ‘step down’ to the Honda badge, the Accord is a MUCh better deal than the TSX.

Blunozer:
No one *needs* 268HP in a family sedan. But it sure as hell is a lot of fun.

partsisparts:
It starts at $28k… the only real option is Nav. Depending on how these sell, you can probably get it for less.

cretinx:
It’s a great car. I’m just not sure what Honda was trying to do with it.

I own a Honda Civic SI and, after 34k miles, I’m happy with it. I probably won’t purchase a Honda again in my lifetime (maybe an Acura, depending on where they go in the next 5 years).

The engine in this car is a bewilderment for Honda. It came out 1+ years after the directly comparable Nissan Altima 3.5 and Toyota Camry 3.5, and yet does not exceed either in anyway (I’ve heard refinement, but I’m not so sure…).

Honda used to be known as “the engine builder”. They built engines more powerful and just as efficient as Toyota, and a few steps above “the others” in the same class. Not anymore.

What exactly is a 3.5 liter engine doing in the front end of a front wheel drive family sedan…or coupe for that matter. It’s too much engine for the car.

Why is Honda/Toyota only “maintaining” their fuel economy figures, instead of improving. I understand that each respective model is getting bigger and heavier and more powerful. But for manufacturers that proclaim their dedication to fuel economy and efficiency, they sure are staying static.

Just a quick poll, from those interested in giving an answer: If you were shopping for a family sedan in today’s market, and one of the V6 models offered 30 less HP than it’s competitors but a combined average of of 3mpg better on the EPA cycle: would you buy it?

Joe

P.s. Sadly, I still think Honda will sell a ton of Accords due to the fact that the interior is fantastically roomy and, aside from it’s center console mass-o-buttons, an ergonomic and design feast compared to it’s competition. But they’re just glowing with the flow, and doing a good job at it.

Thanks for the reply, Megan…
The 2.4 190HP 5-Speed in EX (no leather) trim can be had for less than 24K — though with 17″ wheels and less “bling” than the V6, it’s a bit more plain. Still, less “jelly bean” (no offense) than the previous gen.
The real selling point on this would be the “real-world” MPG numbers; but it seems that Honda has placed low exhaust emissions as a higher priority for this engine lineup.

With a sport-tuned suspension, SH-AWD and a few more toys, the EX-L would blow its competitors into the weeds. As it is, the EX-L is… um… I’m sorry. What were we talking about?

With a sport-tuned suspension, SH-AWD and a few more toys, we would have a much more expensive car that would now be competiting with some very serious machines like the 3series coupe and the G37. Would this not put the front heavy Accord coupe at a major diasadvantage?

Look what is wrong with accepting the Accord Coupe for exactly what it is, a very good car, loaded with a lot of toys, equiped with a powerful engine, sold at a rather reasonable price.
It is NOT a BMW or even an Acura. It is an Accord, a car that have managed to maintain a consistant personality since its inception over 30 years ago. Notice the simple fact that there has NEVER been a “performance” version of the Accord sold in the USA. That has been keeping with the consistant image of the Accord.
The Accord, no matter which model year you choose has always had very good handling, NOT sports car handling but very good natural dynamics. This is the trade-off for a decent ride using the Honda wishbone suspension. It is quite easy to make an Accord handle like a rally car and numerous aftermarket firms are in the business of doing so.

In truth the majority of folks that will buy an Accord coupe will think of it as a modern day Cutlass Supreme or Regal. It will be equiped with an autobox and will make a EXCELLENT highway and Blvd cruiser.

Megan, I love reading your reviews and I had a few chuckles while reading this one. I can’t wait for your next one.

I will have to say I am with the crowd that thinks 4 cylinders and more mpg suits Accord best. After all these are practical people movers that are easy to drive and economical to maintain. There are more than enough rally cars for the few that race on back roads. For the majority of us its on and off ramps and traffic lights. For that the ride and comfort become more important. Honda seems to understand that.

Look what is wrong with accepting the Accord Coupe for exactly what it is, a very good car, loaded with a lot of toys, equiped with a powerful engine, sold at a rather reasonable price.

I did accept it for what it is. I gave it 4 stars overall, right? It’s not a bad car, it’s just a bit of an odd duck in Honda’s lineup. A jack of all trades and a master of none, if you will. With better handling, it’d be a total killer. Honda has the tech, just wish they’d used it.

Great review. Agree with all those who stated that Honda is trying to be Toyota. I am a Honda fan and have owned two Honda Accords – a 1992 sedan and a 2001 coupe.

Beginning with the launch of the 6th gen. Accord in 1998 (when North American got its own version, vs. the “TSX” in Europe and the JDM), the Accord has become bigger, heavier and softer with each generation, i.e., more like a Camry. My 2001 coupe would groan and creak softly whenever I drive it on some slightly uneven incline, e.g., parking lot ramps, because it was just so big that the steel used was just not stiff enough.

Imagine the outcry if the Civic was made to be more and more like a Corolla.

“With a sport-tuned suspension, SH-AWD and a few more toys, the EX-L would blow its competitors into the weeds. As it is, the EX-L is… um… I’m sorry. What were we talking about?”

It would also cannibalize Acura’s sales with that stuff, and would probably be quite a bit more expensive which would again put it squarely into Acura’s territory and turn off buyers looking for a cheaper car. SH-AWD alone would add a few grand to the final cost

SH-AWD would also add weight. As a result, they should have added the SH-only system from the now defunct, front-wheel driven Honda Prelude.

I think that the Accord Coupe is an excellent car that does enough of the little things properly. I’m the owner of a 2002 Accord Coupe with 127,000 miles, and if I lacked the societal pressure to “upgrade” to an expensive European car, I would definitely buy this new model with V6 and Nav.

I remember reading someplace that the design process for the ’03 Accords was to start by redesigning the core of the car to slice out something like 17% of the cost, then putting the cost back in by adding feature content. The resulting Accord and TL both have been widely reported to be more rattle-prone by far than any predecessors. Yours isn’t the first mention of rattles I’ve seen on this new gen, either.

I sat in one of these at a dealership and was startled at the further decline in the look and feel of the materials. The seat leather is fine, granted. But the electroluminescent gauges are gone, and the new ones have cheesy shiny rings around them. The door armrests on both the coupe and the sedan have what look like dollar-toy plastic rocket ships on their facings. In the back, the coupe – even in EX-L trim – has completely padding-free “armrests” molded right into the hard one-piece side panels, just like the lowliest Cavalier.

Given that the new model has even more content (more airbags, ESC, more engine, variable displacement on V6 sedans) and size at nearly the same price, it appears the process continues. I’m gathering this is a competitive response to Camry’s former size advantage. Seems competition doesn’t always improve the breed.

Megan, there is something I do not understand. You complain about the Accord understeering and mention that that is “why God created rear-wheel drive”. Yet during your opening salvo, you mention the Subaru Legacy GT (AWD and a corner pusher) and the TSX (FWD and, again, a corner pusher) as embedding themselves as pratical hooners delights.

that first picture is gorgeous, but then #4 and #5 are awful. that butt is just all wrong and the way the shape of the car sweeps back toward it just looks.. broken. the solara and the current accord coupe have the same problem.

but when you look at the first picture you can almost imagine for a minute you’re seeing a RWD sports coupe. or the new hyundai thingy.

Megan, there is something I do not understand. You complain about the Accord understeering and mention that that is “why God created rear-wheel drive”. Yet during your opening salvo, you mention the Subaru Legacy GT (AWD and a corner pusher) and the TSX (FWD and, again, a corner pusher) as embedding themselves as pratical hooners delights.

It’s a turn of phrase. And if you were to try to throw the Accord around a corner, you’d heartily agree that while the configuration of the LGT and TSX suit those vehicles just fine, the Accord suffers for it. I can’t think of any other car I’ve driven that really made me go, “You know, maybe all those RWD fanatics have a good point.” I personally prefer AWD, but YMMV.

Sorry to echo other poster’s comments, but when will this ridiculous family car arms race end??? My ’99 Solara has a 190hp V6 and I can’t imagine any empty-nester or family (in Camry form) needing more power in a non-sports car. It gets from 0-60 in 7.0 seconds.

Thankfully, the vast majority of Accords will be sold in 4-cylinder form. However that begs the question WHY are we only getting reviews of the rather overpriced and impractical V6 from all auto publications? This is especially relevant here since, from what I father from the review, the only real shining dynamic point of the car is the engine and transmission (only available w/V6).

I think it got four stars by comparing it to the rest of the mid-sized (priced) cars. If it is broken down:
Many car buyers use the bible of Consumer Reports to assist in their car shopping. When the cover is splashed with “Toyota has models on the Not Recommended List,” people will probably hesitate and check out the competition before signing the papers. The Camry has also lost some of the mainstream style that it once had, especially when it had the “Baby Lexus” look down.
The Altima fits the price range quite well and seats 5 without too much “Stop Touching Me” in the back seat! It might be a little too hard edged for some buyers and while the interior materials are improved, more work is needed. This continues to be Nissan’s best-seller so Honda should sweat the Altima.
The Mazda6 is due for a redesign next year and is a bit smaller than the others, but the deals should be excellent. Of all of the mid-sized family cars, in these eyes, the 6 is still the best looking one.
GM finally gave us the Malibu, but Healey in the USA Today just thrashed it today (especially the transmission issues and dirt-poor hybrid mileage) in a national newspaper and GM might have to do damage control to sell the cars without too much cash on the hood.
Ford has the decent Fusion – that counts.
Chrysler might as well dump the Sebring into the closest river and forget it.
So, almost by default, the Accord wins. It still has a huge Honda following, reliability, and a decent feeling interior. I’m not alone in saying that I wish Honda would have stopped the insanity with the “each generation gains a few hundred pounds” new models and I cringe even more if Honda makes the next generation even larger!
I live in Honda country where at every intersection in downtown Cincinnati, there are at least several Hondas, but very few new Accords. That surprised me a bit – and I’ve seen far more new Altimas than before.
I think Mazda has a lot to gain as the 2009 6 is very sharp looking, not bloated, and will still cater to those who like to drive…like Honda used to. Honda might have to sweat this one out.
It’s kind of like the Mazda RX-8. From some angles, it looks really, really good. From other angles, you wonder if the designers were talking to each other. That might be OK for a limited-run sports car, but not a mainstream sedan.

I’m glad to see this car reviewed; I will probably replace my current car within the next 12-18 months, and the Accord coupe is on my list. However, I’d like to add my voice to the chorus calling for a review of the four-cylinder automatic model. That’s going to be the most common configuration, and speaking for myself, I think 268 horses and 248 lb-ft are too much in a wrong-wheel drive car. (Surprised there was no mention of torque steer – did they actually manage to tame it?)

I really wish somebody made an affordable RWD coupe that wasn’t a Mustang. I’ve driven a 1992 Thunderbird (V-6, auto, crowding 200K, 30mpg hwy observed) for almost ten years. As Steven Lang mentioned, there are still plenty of solid T-Birds out there, but I don’t think I want another one. Not because I don’t love them – but because I love my old Thunderchicken too much. It wouldn’t feel right to have another one.

But nobody makes such things today. If the Accord coupe was RWD, there’d be no contest – but it’s not.

I’m not sure if everyone has read it yet, but TTAC already reviewed the 4-cylinder basic sedan version of the Accord. I picked this one out specifically because while the majority of people are going to get that one, there’s a good-sized enthusiast base that wants to see how this car stacks up, since manual transmission cars are getting fewer and further between. I know it’s hard for some of you to believe, but there are people out there that enjoy driving, and want 250+hp in their family sedans. I didn’t realize the Altima V-6 could be had in a manual, so I’m probably going to be checking that one out shortly.

Torque steer — not a whit of it. Okay, maybe a hair, but Honda tamed it very, very nicely. The Mazdaspeed3 was much, much, MUCH worse.

I’m not an Accord coupe fan (or a Solara buff, either) but I have to admit this new one has a certain gravitas when seen in the metal. It is a pastiche of many others’ styling cliches, but by George, the old girl somehow manages to carry it off. Being a Honda, they will sell a whole bunch of ‘em.
Megan mentions the Coupe’s excessive road noise. Isn’t this a Honda sine-qua-non? I recall a US auto scribe’s long-ago pan of a 70’s Renault or Peugeot, that he had found smooth riding, but noisy. When reminded that it was a very popular car in France, the writer rejoined, “they must be deaf and have super-sensitive derrieres.”

Torque steer — not a whit of it. Okay, maybe a hair, but Honda tamed it very, very nicely. The Mazdaspeed3 was much, much, MUCH worse.

Curious about this statement as I’d say that the Mazdaspeed3 doesn’t have nearly as bad torque steer as you seem to make it out to be, especially considering since the car has a boost limiter in 1st and 2nd gear and has other electronical nannies to prevent it. It was one my primary worries before I got the car, coming from a rev-happy torque-less engine (Integra GS-R) and I was quite shocked as torque steer was surprisingly minimal. Not going to say there is no torque steer cuz there is, but nothing drastic like both hands white-knuckle gripped on the wheel as I slam the pedal to metal, even over uneven surfaces. A gentle grip is enough to quell it.

“SH-AWD would also add weight. As a result, they should have added the SH-only system from the now defunct, front-wheel driven Honda Prelude.”

That’d be nice. Would the system do any good for a larger, heavier car such as Accord though? I think Honda could fine-tune the suspension without it as well, they did it for RSX and previous-gen Integras after all

Also, from the review:

“adorned with a small sprinkling of performance cues: … coffee can chromed pipes (huh?) and 18” rims (bow-chicka-bow-wow)”

The same exact exhaust and similar large wheels were available on the previous Accord. They’re nothing new.

I also like how Accord’s 0-60 is “a very respectable 5.9 seconds … won’t light your hair on fire”, while over in the Dodge SRT review 0-60 comes in “5.8 ear-pinning seconds”. Wow, guess it takes just one-tenth of a second to go from boring to ear-pinning excitement

After having read the review of this car in Road and Track, I ordered one at my local dealer. With regard to your review, your comment about the Auto-Eroticism of the dashboard prompts me to paraphrase Freud: A Curvy Dashboard is really only a Curvy Dashboard. I have a 6 speed coupe. After driving away from the dealership, I thought to myself, big mistake. As you describe, big, sloppy, understeering mushbucket. R&T in their review criticised the stock tires. I swapped the Michelin Grand Touring mush donuts for Falken FK452 ZR rated high performance tires. I expected a slight improvement in steering response. What I got was a shock. There was a dramatic improvement in feel and responsiveness. To be sure, the ride did deteriorate, but the virtues of the EXL are now more apparent: very little torque steer which is not true of the Acura TL. The EXL with the new rubber emerges as a very fairly priced near German level sports sedan.

As one of those people who “aspire” to someday actually owning an Accord, and probably an Accord coupe at that, I am disappointed to see that Honda seems to be cutting corners with regards to the quality of interior appointment.

Every Civic I’ve ever owned suffered from annoying interior squeaks and poor door fit that let air whisle around the moldings. It seems like the Accord has inherited the interior squeaks. I hope that lenra is right when he (or she) says that changing the tires on the Accord makes a world of difference in the handling.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post auto reviewer, Warren Brown (whose reviews you have to take with a grain of salt) wrote about the 190-hp Accord 4-door sedan with an automatic transmission on December 2. The Accord base-level sedan has a 177-hp 4.

Warren didn’t think the car had enough horsepower, though he was driving with a pretty full load of passengers and luggage.

I like the Accord coupe styling and can see hints of the BMW 6-series and the Bentley Continental in the fastback styling. If you squint your eyes really hard…

I’d like to think that the Accord coupe coupe be a stopping off point on the way to something better, maybe an Infiniti G37 coupe. Of course, by the time I’m ready for a G37, it will probably be something like the G40.

Honda coming to the realization that Toyota makes boring cars and is no. 1 in the USA. Honda’s tries to keep some sport in the mix, but then they end up playing second fiddle to the big T in the sales department. So, Honda I fear is slowly caving in to Toyota-ism. The Si Civic, while an awesome car, is something I nor any self-respecting RSX Type-S driver would buy. Over 20 grand buy you a quirky Civic with a de-tuned Type-S engine: 205 bhp to 197 bhp. Again awesome car, but not original and bar-raising, which is what I expect from Honda in their typical show-off style. And also, they gotta make sure they don’t outshine their Acura offerings. The only jewel bearing the Honda “H” is the Fit in my mind.

As for the styling, I see Dodge Charger on the rear and Scion tC on the front. And check out that overhang over the front wheels.

As far as the understeer issues, every FWD car is going to have that issue. Its just that Honda mitigated that with small, lightweight engines that put out as much power as bigger engines from the competition. But with that hoggin’ 3.5L, that is out the window.

From experience, my TSX likes to be driven briskly, but not insanely at 10/10ths on public roads. Despite an excellent perfectly tuned and engineered suspension, it is still tuned for a soft ride somewhat, even if just a bit. On the other hand, my Toyota Matrix commuter, inspires fun like a group of Catholic nuns. But, still I try (and fail) at trying to defeat Toyota’s nannies. But compared to a little SUV or the Matrix’s terribly handling Corolla cousin, it does have its handling pluses. (I nearly flipped a CR-V (borrowed from my sister) avoiding a tire recap on the freeway and swore I’d never buy a SUV, even if it was a Honda) And there is where Honda still hasn’t capped the fun, for their nannies will let some not-mom-approved tire action happen before stepping in.

As for oversteer in any FWD car (yes-oversteer), it is possible if you have fresh tires on the front wheels, bald tires on the rear, and purposely charge into standing water on freeway loop ramps. The lack of weight on the rear wheels in conjunction with no tread causes them to hydroplain before the front wheels loose grip and cause understeer. Its sort of like driving on honey coated ice. But not suggested if you don’t want a wrecked car on your hands, since while you can acheive oversteer, you have no control, but hit the gas, and its back to understeer time and there’s no fun in that. If this works in a Toyota, I don’t know if it would work in a Honda Accord Coupe, but at nearly $30K brand new, I don’t think anyone would be trying this anytime soon. (Its just that I’ve still got some of my teenage tendancies still in me.) Just do the sensible and mature thing if hardcore pistonhead things really matter to you, and buy a Beamer 3 or G35/37 with RWD (and balanced weight distribution) and call it a day. This Accord is for Mom and Dad when the kids have finally gone off to college and graduated, allowing the minivan to be sent off packing.

Returned to Accord article and noticed that when I put my mouse over the word “automotive” that is underlined and green, a pop-up add for the Dodge Sprinter commercial van popped up. WTF? Is this meant to imply the Accord handles like a commerical van? Well, the article did say it had a big trunk for lots of hauling (just like a Sprinter). And I’m sure the Sprinter has numb steering just like this Accord was deadpanned for possessing? Kind of funny… :?

theflyersfan
I’m not alone in saying that I wish Honda would have stopped the insanity with the “each generation gains a few hundred pounds” new models and I cringe even more if Honda makes the next generation even larger!

No you’re not! I love my ’99 Accord, and I love tossing it around corners. I don’t understand why Honda thinks they have to keep growing the thing. I’m not going to be getting one of those porkers.

No you’re not! I love my ‘99 Accord, and I love tossing it around corners. I don’t understand why Honda thinks they have to keep growing the thing. I’m not going to be getting one of those porkers.

And of course the ’98-02 Accord was a porker compared to the ’94-97 which surprisingly was about the same size as the ’90-93 which was a huge porker compared to the ’86-89. Having driven all of them, i’d bet an ’88/89 LXI with a modern wheel/tire would leave any ’98-02 in the dust on a twisty mountain road.

Point is, the only reason Honda is doing this is because the majority of their customer base expects a bigger car with every new model. Their trick is trying to wring similar performance and fuel econ. out of every “upsizing”. For that. I think Honda is doing a pretty good job.

I have a 2004 EX V6 manual coupe, bought used 8 months ago. I’ve owned many cars over 40 years, including other Hondas and Acuras.

The “PLAN” was not only to enjoy the car (which I do except for the lack of power), but also a strategic move/gamble for a favorable same make trade on the new one. After all, how could Honda screw it up? They had to introduce class competitive engines and, in keeping with modern reality, reduce weight. Almost the last to appear with a revamped modern version in this class of car (2 and 4 door). Surely they would know what we want, and NOT want. Right?

WRONG. Huh? Bloat city! They focus on the rear seating room/longer car (who ever seriously had that on top of their list, or even on it?). Added weight (significant, not a few pounds) in 2008?? Seriously?

So, Honda loses a customer due to their own stupidity. Like Louie in the old Budweiser commercial, “those frogs are gonna pay”. OR, “do the (weight) crime, do the time”.

Steven Lang: you beat me to the Mark VIII reference. My only disagreement with you is that the $45,000 Lincoln’s depreciation curve is far steeper than any Accord coupe (I expect the new model will follow suit) and no matter how hard you (foolishly) thrash it, the Lincoln never torque steers.

And a car this big needs to be RWD. I parked my ’95 LSC next to a new Accord and the Honda was taller than me. Width and wheelbase was similar too. With this ride, Honda is making the modern equivalent of a ’77 Olds Regency Coupe.

Hondas are getting much too big when they start to intimidate a Lincoln Mark VIII in the parking lot. A last-gen CPO Accord Coupe looks more appealing than this new porker.

In comparison, I am really surprised that the Lamborghini Gallardo got 5 stars. A ridiculously high mark for a car that can only transport two.

wsn: Seriously, you’re comparing the ratings of a FWD coupe-yacht to an exotic Super Car? The Gallardo has insane performance (without the E-gear), stunning fit and finish and remarkable city manners to boot.

And a car this big needs to be RWD. I parked my ‘95 LSC next to a new Accord and the Honda was taller than me. Width and wheelbase was similar too. With this ride, Honda is making the modern equivalent of a ‘77 Olds Regency Coupe.

I parked my Crown Vic next to this (yes, apples to apples, 4 door to 4 door), and I’m sure less than a foot separated the lengths of the two. It was quite a bit taller as well.

Hmmm…. I just bought a 1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC a week ago for $2600 that is in immaculate shape. At least on the used side, touring coupes are having a lot of difficulty in the marketplace.

And ended here…

“But then again, you can get a perfectly good T-Bird with low mileage, a V8 and all the options for around $1500 to $2500 these days.

This Accord may be a four star vehicle. But compared with the bang for the buck you can get in the used car market (which offers magna cum depreciation in this particular segment), it’s not really a good choice.”

I was affirming the steep depreciation that luxury coupes have experienced in the NA marketplace. The $45,000 Lincoln was bought for $2600. One owner, 104k, perfect interior. There is a little wear on the paint on the rear quarter panel and trunk lid, but that’s about it.

I drove a 94 Tbird today with a V8 that I bought for $650 at a sale a while back. What a great driver. I would upgrade the dash a bit with some wood and chrome accents, install high quality speakers and a Sirius satellite system, throw in a transmission cooler (the one weakness of the 1990’s RWD V8 platform is the transmission) and I would have a pretty neat commuter for the winding roads of North Georgia. This wouldn’t cost more than about $1000 to $1200 (if a good kit was available for the dash dress-up)… I honestly can’t see how this Accord would compare to a classic T-Bird that would cost about a tenth as much.

The depressing fact about the ‘mature’ coupe market is that it’s in dying mode. In very much the way that hatchbacks and Japanese sports cars struggled about ten years ago. It’ll bounce back. Perhaps. But I think that the breakthrough product won’t come from Toyota or Honda.

Then again, maybe sedans, hatchbacks and wagons are so well designed these days that a large coupe is simply not a worthy consideration. The Riviera, Mark VIII, T-Bird and Toronado all lost their way in the 1990’s and perhaps the Solara (dead) and Accord will follow. Keep in mind that Camry and Accord wagons are also no longer available in North America.

“a perfectly good T-Bird … for around $1500 to $2500″ Sounds great! But Steven, not all of us get to shop at dealer auctions. Don’t dealers mark them up a couple grand or so?

You mentioned wagons. A friend just bought an early 90’s Roadmaster wagon–a nifty Interstate cruiser with gobs of space for stuff. My impression is that prices for those big GM wagons are picking up. Lots classier than minivans, and decent gas mileage on the open road.

86er: got the same feeling when the TTAC-tested Grand Marquis parked next to a new Camry. I was expecting the height (all cars are pretend SUVs these days) but the length was a shocker.

Steven: but from what I’ve seen, the Accord coupes hold their value pretty well. My friend got one of the older coupes (the real slick ones that looked like an NSX from the back) with 100,000 miles, 4cyl, auto, EX for $10,000. I thought that was excessive, but the market (retail) seems to like them. I donno, that’s just a random sampling of the market.

Agreed about the T-bird being a great used car value, plenty of style, comfort and respectable power with the 4.6L.

And you touched on the possibility of coupes making a comeback: but Detroit’s gotta start. They are the only ones with a mainstream history of good coupes. As soon as they have a good RWD chassis, low slung (Bill Mitchell!!!) proportions, and an interior better than the Mustangs…it will happen. And the market will respond.

Finaly, tell me how much money you spend on the LSC, they are huge money pits (by American car standards) unless you have a stack of receipts for replacement suspension components. And you don’t want to know how much an HID bulb or neon taillight goes for. Damn those coupes and their limited production nature!!!

How is the trunk access? I saw one of these fairly recently and while it looked like a nice car, it had an itty bitty mail slot for the trunk opening. It looked like you wouldn’t be able to fit anything in there. Something with this sloped a roofline really should be a hatchback, but I know, Americans don’t buy hatchbacks. What happened to the formal roofline- those cars had great trunks and great use of space.
When I worked for Hertz- some years ago- people in wheelchairs rented a lot of the T-birds and Cougars and Grand Prix coupes because it was easier to get in and out and easier to load the folding wheelchair. The T-Bird/Cougar should have stuck around longer in it’s up to ’97 form. They were nice cars and GM abandoned that market with its underpowered and overweight FWD GM10 cars.

Hah, didn’t click through to the astronomer story until you mentioned it. The rumor from this Autoweek article is that the vehicle, codenamed ACE, is coming in 2008 with a different name, V6 only, available AWD.

And about all the love for the 10th gen TBird (1989-1997) forgets that these cars were overweight and underpowered, as well, especially in 3.8L V6 form. At 3700 lbs, these ‘sporty’ coupes weighed in around the same as today’s CUVs and were powered by anemic engines (205 hp 4.6L V8, 140 hp/215 ft-lb 3.8L V6). Not to mention the 3.8L V6’s penchant for blown head gaskets.

The Thunderbirds weren’t quite that heavy – a quick search turns up a 3536-lb curb weight figure. I’ve owned a V-6 model for nearly ten years and it’s been plenty fast enough to get me one speeding ticket (and agile enough to avoid a couple more.) Over the years I’ve driven it hard enough to make myself grin plenty of times and scare myself a few times – sighing with relief after every scare because the car is easy to recover if you know what you’re doing, and hard to lose in the first place because it’s so stable and predictable. It’ll oversteer if you want, but only if you want. Which sometimes you do. Wheeee!

I did have to rebuild the motor around 100K and the transmission a couple years later. I knew about the motor issue going in, and given what I paid for the car (and what they’re going for now), it wasn’t that big a deal. The transmission failure annoyed me because it came without warning, but at least I managed to limp the car home.

Like most RWD machines, the car is not especially pleasant to drive in snow, unless you have a frozen lake at your disposal. Last March I went up an S-curved hill in a blizzard – on the second try, after letting the tires cool from the first run at it, pretty much sideways, with tires spinning and the wheel cranked over as far as it would go. When I finally got where I was going, I more or less spun the car into the driveway. But I did make it!

About the Tbird: 3700lb got you the Mark VIII with all its extra air suspension, luxury bits, sound insulation and heavy 4V motor. A Tbird, even with its size and IRS, is pretty similar to a new Mustang GT. (Plus it has a real back seat and nicer interior plastics)

Steven: good points, but even the online junkyards will have a hard time locating parts (that work) like the HID bulbs, power tilt wheel, ashtray assembly (that isn’t broken), LED side mirrors and other parts unique to the 97-98 Mark. And if they got them, they will go for serious coin. Side note: the less complicated, more common 93-96 models are easier on the checkbook and have more performance to boot.

gimmeamanual: forget about the marketers, the corporations don’t care. Japan Inc spent the better part of 30 years refining a FWD chassis, and aren’t about to dump that because they have outgrown their skeletons. Compared to the domestics and Toyota, look how long it took Honda to introduce a V6 to the Accord! (about 4 years after the Camry, 10+ after Detroit)

On the open road the Tbird is far more quiet than the Mustang, and I find the interior a bit more like the Mark VIII in terms of design and ergonomics. However, I do agree with you on the Mark VIII parts issue. The 97-98 are unique PITA’s parts wise which is why I would prefer the 96 model as a daily driver. In fact, I sold one last year for $7900 to a fellow in Washington state and he spent well over a thousand having it transported out there. In my opinion, the 1996 was as good as it gets.

As far as Tbird prices, I have a 94 T-bird with the V8 and 152k miles, online for $1695. I sold a 95 model a few months back for $1795 with similar miles. T-birds don’t go for anything these days and I have yet to see one sell for more than $2500 around here. Perhaps if you got a 1997 with leather and low miles (under 100k), I could see it. Even if it were mint though, I wouldn’t see it retailing for more than $3500.

Once sedans became sporty instead of square (think the 1st gen Maxima and LH sedans), the market for luxury coupes went into a downward spiral. It simply isn’t worth it to lose the two doors in exchange for slightly better ergonomics, less space, and in the case of most of these vehicles, more heft.

One more thing… this Accord’s design bring back memories of the 2nd generation Legend coupe (mid-90’s model). I loved that car (and the name) but the car wasn’t built with a sport focus. It’s not a bad thing. Just that most luxury car owners prefer to have four doors instead of two.

Gimmeamanual: YES, it does matter what we think because we are all prospective consumers! Putting 270hp in a $30k FWD non-sporting coupe/family sedan puts it in an awkward position relative to the market. Far more power and too thirsty for most families’ needs. Not a sporty enough chassis for the prospective coupe buyer. The slow-selling Solara has the same exact problem. It has a gem of an engine and gorgeous interior, but with pricing in the high-20’s the competition offers sportiness that the Solara’s underlying platform simply can’t match. So you say it’s not for us, then I ask you this: Who IS it for???

Non-sporting? Have you ever driven an SE-R? As fast as and handles as well as my 2000 Mustang GT, but with a bigger trunk, 2 more doors, nicer interior, and 1 more gear, for the same sticker. Oh, and the same gas mileage; my combined is 24-25, and on long highway trips I get 29, on mid-grade. So no, I don't think an 260(+/-10)HP FWD $30k sedan is in an awkward position in the market, since everyone offers one. Granted, this article is about a coupe, but they're comparing it to sedans, and inevitably over half the people that walk into a Honda showroom looking for a V6 4dr Accord will be dragged into looking at the coupe. What I'm saying is, its for someone like me, that for whatever reason (family, work), wants/needs a relatively large vehicle but refuses to drive a mind-numbingly boring sedan with no personality…and doesn't want to pay BMW-premiums, be it for price, service, or insurance. If I could have gotten away with a coupe, I would have, but the sedan gives you 90% of what the coupe gives, with far more versatility, and lower insurance premiums. So I'm incredibly happy that Honda (and Nissan) offer a choice: a frugal 4 or a whallop of a 6. I just wish more manufacturers would put a stick in a big engine sedan. Offering it for only 4's, or in this case only the coupe, shuts me out. You hear that Ford, GM, and Chrysler? I may be a minority, but I'm a minority that the Japanese go looking for.

Fast forward 5 years and the pretentious reviewer looks like a donkey to me. I bought an 05 6sp 6cy after searching for years for one that was bought by a “feminine type” , one owner, low miles for one reason, TO RAT BAG IT, drive it as hard as I could as fast as I could, and if I had some trouble in the corners IT DID NOT MATTER, I was MASCULINE enough to handle it and maybe bump the odd “feminine types” clear into the ditch and not care if I dented the thing when the occassion warrented it. That the reviewer here did not recognize the future value of this car as a pleaseure vehicle to those that actually DRIVE as pleasure is a shame indeed. This car, is a classic, meant for real drivers, that want a cheap thrill, not for New york opera goers. AS always, the test of time, is what counts. Pick up a used honda 6 cyl , 6 spd drive it into the ground and actually feel what driving is supposed to do. MAKE YOU LAUGH. I am still trying to kill this thing but it JUST WONT DIE.